Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Its fascinating to see some of the responses under this thread. People in America get all gooey-eyed when someone tells them about the rights they have under our Constitution (including the right to counsel). Yet, when counsel does his job and gets a jury to acquit his client because the jury doesn't believe the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that they she committed the crime, suddenly they head for the bucket of tar and feathers.

I will say that anyone who is falsely accused of a crime would thank their lucky stars for the likes of Cheney Mason, Jose Baez, and those attorneys who do aggressively defend their clients. I don't like the results in this case, but I find it fascinating how much more interest there is in Casey Anthony's acquittal than more intellectual topics about criminal justice such as the jury system or the Miranda Rule. Anyone can have a gut reaction to something. It takes an intelligent person to understand why we have a system in place with checks and balances.

My definition of a "scumbucket" is someone who says they believe in the Constitution and than wants to forget about it when there is one verdict in one criminal case that they disagree with.

Its fascinating to see some of the responses under this thread. People in America get all gooey-eyed when someone tells them about the rights they have under our Constitution (including the right to counsel). Yet, when counsel does his job and gets a jury to acquit his client because the jury doesn't believe the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that they she committed the crime, suddenly they head for the bucket of tar and feathers.

I will say that anyone who is falsely accused of a crime would thank their lucky stars for the likes of Cheney Mason, Jose Baez, and those attorneys who do aggressively defend their clients. I don't like the results in this case, but I find it fascinating how much more interest there is in Casey Anthony's acquittal than more intellectual topics about criminal justice such as the jury system or the Miranda Rule. Anyone can have a gut reaction to something. It takes an intelligent person to understand why we have a system in place with checks and balances.

My definition of a "scumbucket" is someone who says they believe in the Constitution and than wants to forget about it when there is one verdict in one criminal case that they disagree with.

Its fascinating to see some of the responses under this thread. People in America get all gooey-eyed when someone tells them about the rights they have under our Constitution (including the right to counsel). Yet, when counsel does his job and gets a jury to acquit his client because the jury doesn't believe the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that they she committed the crime, suddenly they head for the bucket of tar and feathers.

I will say that anyone who is falsely accused of a crime would thank their lucky stars for the likes of Cheney Mason, Jose Baez, and those attorneys who do aggressively defend their clients. I don't like the results in this case, but I find it fascinating how much more interest there is in Casey Anthony's acquittal than more intellectual topics about criminal justice such as the jury system or the Miranda Rule. Anyone can have a gut reaction to something. It takes an intelligent person to understand why we have a system in place with checks and balances.

My definition of a "scumbucket" is someone who says they believe in the Constitution and than wants to forget about it when there is one verdict in one criminal case that they disagree with.

Fact is the system did not work and many other times it does not work. OJ trial was a complete failure as well. If we did not voice our opinions here and didn't give a damn when justice is not reached we are pathetic with no moral , ethical or decent judgement in our souls. We might as well throw out the Constitution and not stand for anything.

Fact is the system did not work and many other times it does not work. OJ trial was a complete failure as well. If we did not voice our opinions here and didn't give a damn when justice is not reached we are pathetic with no moral , ethical or decent judgement in our souls. We might as well throw out the Constitution and not stand for anything.

You bet your ass it doesn't always work. There are innocent men and women sitting in prison. Where is the outcry for THEM?

Fact is the system did not work and many other times it does not work. OJ trial was a complete failure as well. If we did not voice our opinions here and didn't give a damn when justice is not reached we are pathetic with no moral , ethical or decent judgement in our souls. We might as well throw out the Constitution and not stand for anything.

Your thinking on this issue is very shallow. You judge our criminal justice system a "complete failure" based on the Casey Anthony case and the OJ Simpson case (which interestingly occurred 16 years apart from one another).

An intelligent person trying to make the case that "our criminal justice system is a failure" would come up with real evidence. Perhaps, statistics could be presented so that we would know how often these "failures" take place. For example, one could compare the criminal justice system with other systems and show some contrast that would prove that other systems in other countries do their job more efficiently.

Since both cases involved situations where a jury failed to convict based upon the fact it had a reasonable doubt that the offender was guilty than you must be against the jury system. If this is the case, it is incumbent upon you to present us with an alternative that reaches the correct result more often than the current system does. I not only fail to see any evidence that our system is a failure, but the two isolated cases you point out, you fail to demonstrate what you would replace our system with.

You do understand that our system allows criminal defendants to be judged by jurors who possess their own free will? When those jurors exercise their free will in a manner you find to be distasteful, you illogically condemn the entire criminal justice system. I say if there is fault here that it lies with the individual jurors and not with the system. Are you able to differentiate between the two?

My advice to you and others who choose to rant and rave about the Casey Anthony trial is to arm yourself with a few facts before you sound off.

Finally, those who would throw away the sacred protections articulated in our Bill of Rights do grave dishonor to the hundreds of thousands of men and women who died for our country in the many wars we have fought. Minimizing or trivializing such freedoms in light of this sacrifice is a real moral judgment on the "souls" of those who do so.

I think the hundreds of thousands of men and women who died for our country did it more to keep 3 year olds from getting stuffed into a black bag and thrown into a garbage dump then to keep the one who did it out of jail.

I think the hundreds of thousands of men and women who died for our country did it more to keep 3 year olds from getting stuffed into a black bag and thrown into a garbage dump then to keep the one who did it out of jail.

What?! See, this right here shows me that some people really don't get the justice system.

What?! See, this right here shows me that some people really don't get the justice system.

How was the "justice system" supposed to stop this murder?

The poster you are referring too is upset (as I am) with what appears to be a miscarriage of justice. Perhaps, if I read more of her posts, I'd get a real understanding of where she was coming from.

I agree though that her post appears to be premised on a false understanding of what the Bill of Rights and the constitutional protection giving those accused of crimes is supposed to do. The Founding Fathers view of "freedom" appears to be different than hers. Freedom isn't about protection from crime. For that matter it isn't about protection from harm that comes to people from nature or from other private individuals. The freedoms that are articulated in the Constitution were put there to protect us from our own government.

The fact that we don't have newspaper editors being put into jail for writing articles that politicians don't agree with is proof that the Bill of Rights works. The fact that I can attend a church with a very different belief system than your church without fear that the police will arrest my bishop is proof that it works. Finally, the fact that the Governor of Florida cannot step in in this case and overturn this unpopular jury verdict also shows that (no matter how painful) our system works. The Bill of Rights was never meant to guarantee us protection from crime, protection from unemployment, or guarantee us relief in the event of a flood or earthquake.

Honestly, the longer people rant and rave about the Casey Anthony trial, the more I become convinced that all the Civics and American Government classes being taught in schools around this country are teaching nothing at all. I've seen studies that show that less than 20% of Americans can even name the three branches of government. Its really quite pathetic and its right in line with a lot of the nonsense I'm reading here. Even so, its one thing to be ignorant. Its another to insist on spreading your ignorance on a public forum.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.